Originally Posted by Bekologist (Post 8988878)

Fred Oswald seems a misinformed bicykling Elitist.

Fred said about bicycling facilities - all classes of bikeway as he apparently doesn't discriminate - "Fools rush in," he added. "People are going to get hurt and killed."

thats not what happens. Fred Oswald needs to lose the hysterics.

Originally Posted by maddyfish (Post 9075169)

DO we put a 25 mph only lane on the freeway for the old ladies that are too cowardly to drive their cars on the freeway?

Then why do we put a bike lane on a road for bikers too cowardly to ride on the road?

Originally Posted by maddyfish (Post 9075169)

I always like this arguement. Increased ridership. Maybe I am selfish, but I don't have any problems on the road now, so I have nothing to gain from bike lanes, and bikeways. And plenty to lose. I don't care if more people ride. MAkes no difference to me. I want to be able to ride where I want to go. And I dont want to see roads that I have full use of now, be cut down to a little path at the side of the road in the gutter. And I don't want to be expected/required to ride in that little gutter path.

DO we put a 25 mph only lane on the freeway for the old ladies that are too cowardly to drive their cars on the freeway?

Then why do we put a bike lane on a road for bikers too cowardly to ride on the road?

Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike (Post 9075202)

The term "bikeway contoversy" always seems to bring out the Studly Vehicular Cyclists™ boasting about the status of their cojones vice the "cowards" who do not share their opinion.

Originally Posted by DX-MAN (Post 9262766)

The core issue that nobody will address is this: increased population plus deteriorating education equals a host of fools running around like headless chickens.

When I bike-commuted in the 70's, there was no problem. I shared the road, and never even had a close call. Today, I can't get through a week without checking my body for paint from a car.

We, as a society, have made driving TOO easy, too convenient; getting a license is almost as simple as buying a box of Crackerjacks, losing it takes an act of Congress countersigned by God.

Toughen up on the testing, and the enforcement on driving w/o a license, and we MAY see a glimmer of hope for the return of bike-friendly streets.

Oh -- and testing for cyclists who want to use the road? Why not? I'd pass, and I'll make SURE my kids do when I feel they're big enough to take it on.

Originally Posted by Village Idiot (Post 9075114)

The other day I would have had to ride out into oncoming traffic to avoid missing shattered glass that was spread every where. Our lanes only run on one side of the road.

Originally Posted by DX-MAN (Post 9262766)

The core issue that nobody will address is this: increased population plus deteriorating education equals a host of fools running around like headless chickens..

Originally Posted by Bekologist (Post 9075324)

I don't know why communities should even consider catering to elitists like maddyfish and fred.

Communities should plan transportation infrastructure for more bicycling participation, safer bicycling and better bicycling connectivity for everyone, not just cojones-heady buffoons.

communities can do much for for bicyclists than VCs "Cars first" advocacy.

Originally Posted by DX Rider (Post 9378760)

I don't disagree commuting has gotten more hazardous over the years, but I agree more with a socialogists assessment of this phenonom and road rage. It is a form of techno-creep.

In previous decades people were more tolerable of other people, because they're was constant human interaction even while commuting. Now, in the age of high technology, there is less interpersonal interaction, between laptops, iPods, cellphones... lost in their own little world.

Direct interpersonal relationships are a skill that in modern times has been largely deverted to indirect means. In the past, you had to stop by Joe Blows house, because there were no cellphones, now he's just a text message away. All skills erode without regular practice.

Originally Posted by genec (Post 9026037)

Fred Oswald and others need to come to grips with the fact that vehicular cycling has not increased the numbers of cyclists anywhere... and in fact, where vehicular cycling was once the only form of cycling practiced, cycling ridership has declined less than 1%... the United States and Great Briton are prime examples.

Where cycling facilities have been installed, and motor vehicle use has been discouraged, cycling for transportation has soared to be as much as 25% of all trips.

Originally Posted by John Forester (Post 9446643)

This is partly correct, partly fallacious, hence rather mendacious. Vehicular cycling was the dominant mode from the invention of the bicycle, and hence was the condition in which the enormous development of cycling occurred. Your claim pertains only to after the introduction of mass motoring, when cycling of all kinds declined.

Your claim regarding vehicular cycling in the USA is false, because the predominant, official, socially desired mode of cycling in the USA has been cyclist-inferiority cycling, now enforced by bikeways. The decline of cycling in the USA has nothing to do with vehicular cycling; the causes are much more associated with general social, demographic, and economic conditions.

Great Britain's experience fits your example, but the UK was very different from the rest of Europe over all these decades, being, as far as transportation is concerned, more like the USA than the central European nations. In 1952, two years after British petrol rationing ended, bicycle traffic constituted 25% of the vehicle miles on British roads, and it has declined since.

Your claim that "Where cycling facilities have been installed, and motor vehicle use has been discouraged, cycling for transportation has soared to be as much as 25% of all trips" is false, both in fact and in reasoning. It would be more accurate to state that in those nations in which there had been the greatest bicycle modal share, the decline has been less, with some areas having a modal share as high as 25%. These areas were developed as walking cities in which walking is convenient, although bicycling is faster, and motoring is inconvenient, and the authorities have maintained those characteristics as much as possible. Only one of the means has been the provision of bicycling facilities, and there is no means of evaluating the effect of the various means and conditions.

Originally Posted by John Forester (Post 9446643)

This is partly correct, partly fallacious, hence rather mendacious. Vehicular cycling was the dominant mode from the invention of the bicycle, and hence was the condition in which the enormous development of cycling occurred. Your claim pertains only to after the introduction of mass motoring, when cycling of all kinds declined.

Your claim regarding vehicular cycling in the USA is false, because the predominant, official, socially desired mode of cycling in the USA has been cyclist-inferiority cycling, now enforced by bikeways. The decline of cycling in the USA has nothing to do with vehicular cycling; the causes are much more associated with general social, demographic, and economic conditions.

Great Britain's experience fits your example, but the UK was very different from the rest of Europe over all these decades, being, as far as transportation is concerned, more like the USA than the central European nations. In 1952, two years after British petrol rationing ended, bicycle traffic constituted 25% of the vehicle miles on British roads, and it has declined since.

Your claim that "Where cycling facilities have been installed, and motor vehicle use has been discouraged, cycling for transportation has soared to be as much as 25% of all trips" is false, both in fact and in reasoning. It would be more accurate to state that in those nations in which there had been the greatest bicycle modal share, the decline has been less, with some areas having a modal share as high as 25%. These areas were developed as walking cities in which walking is convenient, although bicycling is faster, and motoring is inconvenient, and the authorities have maintained those characteristics as much as possible. Only one of the means has been the provision of bicycling facilities, and there is no means of evaluating the effect of the various means and conditions.

Originally Posted by genec (Post 9557524)

How does this reasoning fit Davis CA where motoring is not discouraged, but cycling is encouraged and well supported.

Originally Posted by John Forester (Post 9558038)

Genec's question, which appears at the bottom of this, refers to the part that I copied into this reply block.
Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
This is partly correct, partly fallacious, hence rather mendacious. Vehicular cycling was the dominant mode from the invention of the bicycle, and hence was the condition in which the enormous development of cycling occurred. Your claim pertains only to after the introduction of mass motoring, when cycling of all kinds declined.

Your claim regarding vehicular cycling in the USA is false, because the predominant, official, socially desired mode of cycling in the USA has been cyclist-inferiority cycling, now enforced by bikeways. The decline of cycling in the USA has nothing to do with vehicular cycling; the causes are much more associated with general social, demographic, and economic conditions.

Great Britain's experience fits your example, but the UK was very different from the rest of Europe over all these decades, being, as far as transportation is concerned, more like the USA than the central European nations. In 1952, two years after British petrol rationing ended, bicycle traffic constituted 25% of the vehicle miles on British roads, and it has declined since.

Your claim that "Where cycling facilities have been installed, and motor vehicle use has been discouraged, cycling for transportation has soared to be as much as 25% of all trips" is false, both in fact and in reasoning. It would be more accurate to state that in those nations in which there had been the greatest bicycle modal share, the decline has been less, with some areas having a modal share as high as 25%. These areas were developed as walking cities in which walking is convenient, although bicycling is faster, and motoring is inconvenient, and the authorities have maintained those characteristics as much as possible. Only one of the means has been the provision of bicycling facilities, and there is no means of evaluating the effect of the various means and conditions.




The cycling history of Davis occurs only after the introduction of mass motoring. Therefore, I start with this one of my statements. "Your claim regarding vehicular cycling in the USA is false, because the predominant, official, socially desired mode of cycling in the USA has been cyclist-inferiority cycling, now enforced by bikeways." The Davis bikeway system was started by people (Somers, the Lotts, and others) whose idea of cycling was only cyclist-inferiority cycling and who had no understanding of vehicular cycling. Reading their reports, both advocacy and research, demonstrates this very clearly They designed their system, until the other California bikeway standards came into being, without any thought but cyclist-inferiority cycling while ignoring the standard traffic-engineering knowledge on which vehicular cycling is based. Naturally, the California standards gradually took over, but, as I have demonstrated many times, these also are based on cyclist-inferiority cycling.

I suppose that the intent of your question concerns not what I have just written, but the fact that Davis has a high bicycle modal share. Of course it does, because it has a large university with a widespread campus and living accommodations, in which the campus is closed to all but faculty and authorized motor vehicles, excluding students' motor vehicles. The students must either walk, cycle, or take the university bus. Cycling, as the Europeans state, is faster than walking, so it becomes preferable, or at least until the bus service became available a few years ago, when cycling dropped in popularity.

Originally Posted by genec (Post 9558464)

So your explanation for the cycling success in Davis is due to students being "forced" to bike?

I can only wonder what students are using the Davis Transit Depot? (to the point of overflowing the bike racks there)

One can only also wonder about the filled parking lots around the Davis campus... Are those all only "faculty and authorized motor vehicles?"

Originally Posted by John Forester (Post 9559735)

The parking eligibility and rates are listed in this rather long table:

http://taps.ucdavis.edu/parking/permits/rates.cfm

As you see, parking eligibility is limited to faculty, staff, and a very small list of others, such as vendors and disabled.